Should We Be Having Kids in the Age of Climate Change?
npr.org
npr.org
The issue is that without children, there will be no experience of the hellhole. As terrible as humans have been for the rest of the life on this planet, we are becoming more conscious of it, and I think intelligence is a worthwhile trait to preserve. Since immortality is a fiction, children are the way to do it.
Children are very adaptable. It's us old people who will suffer through change. I mean, in the US, college freshmen have grown up in a world where you can be jailed for discussing encryption and kicked out of the airport for sharing a name with a suspected terrorist and police use military gear, and they're doing fine. For the most part.
We see how the world is changing, and we're horrified. For our children, that will just be the way things are. I am optimistic that some aspects will even be better. Our great-grandparents would say the same about our world now, and we're only around to experience it because they chose to have children.
I'm not proposing that people curb procreation, just that the logic you proposed does not talk about the magnitude of procreation that would be 'optimal', so to speak.
2. Human life is its own good.
3. Bryan Caplan discusses this and many other interesting topics in Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046....
It'd be easier to sell or concrete over your lawn.
1: Well, maybe not destroyed. Achieved the equivalent of 10-20 years of normal wear in months may be more appropriate.
This assumption is challenged in David Benatar's provocative book "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence"
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0...
The thesis (which seems absurd, and most will not accept it), is that coming into existence is an overall harm.
Whether one accepts that or not, human life is demonstrably not /good/ for almost all other life on this planet, since we compete with those resources and. As Elizabeth Kolbert points out, humans are causing the 6th great extinction.
> Bryan Caplan ...
Is a member of the Cato Institute, which is anti-population control.
By my own calculations, it looks like offsetting 100% of an American's carbon footprint costs $55/month.
Sources:
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/survey-of-carbon-...
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/carbon-offset-p...
9,441 metric tons of carbon * $5.5 /metric ton / 936 month average lifespan = $55 / month
Based on the math above, you'd pay a woman $51480 to have her tubes tied.
"Carbon offsets" are not actually sold by the environment itself -- they are just based on limits bureaucrats put in place after much deliberation, calculated conveniently enough to still allow for our current levels of consumption and pollution.
Scarcity often results in innovation. A finite resource like labor will result in higher salaries due to competition and innovation to increase productivity to circumvent his costs.
Conversely, a glut of labor results in low wages and societal problems as fewer positions exist than job seekers.
This appears consisten historically: After the black death in europe, workers were more valuable and this helped break the chains of serfdom and feudalism.
I am all for a smaller global population, particularly in light of the growing automation I expect to observe in the next 30 years.
The problem is the only population that's shrinking is well educated white liberals. Ironically, they're the only ones that buy that not having kids will somehow benefit the "planet".
Also the fertility rate is varies significantly across the country.
If you think about it countries like Saudi, Pakistan and most parts of Africa have the highest fertility rates
I'm also saying "citation needed" knee-jerk reactions are not intelligent.
"Population boom: 40% of all humans will be African by end of century": http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-to-experien...
"By the end of the century, almost half the world’s children may be African": http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/2161334...
But apparently the real problem is white, college-educated westerners having too many children. Thanks NPR.
On the one hand, I'm pretty pessimistic about the current political will necessary to create global policy on climate change solutions. I feel we are too primitive right now; too fixated on historical inertial factors such as religion, ethnicity, and nationalism to let go and embrace the one thing that will allow global solutions to happen: tolerance.
On the other hand, I have faith in the human race that if we do get to a crisis point, that sanity will prevail and we will pool our resources to overcome these global issues. However, much pain will occur before this pooling (hopefully) takes place. For example, if projections are correct, the Persian Gulf will be uninhabitable by 2050 which will make today's refugee crisis pale in consideration.
So I say have kids, but we must instil upon them that their generation needs to wrestle the power away from the current band of old white males. They cannot stay on the sidelines because basically they are fucked if they do.
After all, with the advent of AI and the rapid pace of robotics research the transition to a near-jobless society will be interesting...
So if we (ie the people addressed by the article) stop to exist, the population will continue to grow in size (4bn in Africa by the end of the century) and carbon emissions will probably catch up to where they are now in a decade or so.
Children are the trees that we plant. They are our contribution to the future of our species. For most of us, they are our only contribution to the species.
So plant trees. Lots of them. Raise them up to be like you: concerned for the welfare of our species and it's only home. Humanity will need as many of their kind as we can get.